Thursday, July 14, 2005

Karl Rove

I figure it is time for me to say something about this. While a lot of people disagree with me, I think the situation really resembles the Bill and Monica scandal back in the nineties. Clinton said to us, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”, while shaking his finger. Rove said, “I did not know her name, I did not leak her name”. Both of these statements might not be direct lies, that is if you believe Clinton actually things that what he did wasn’t sexual relations. But, both statements had a specific purpose, to mislead the public while giving the speaker an out, so that later they can say, “everything I said was true”. The American people are not as stupid as you think, we know what you are doing, we didn’t like it when Clinton did it, and we don’t like it this time.

Should Bush fire Rove, well, I think he should live up to his promise, just because Rove didn’t leak the person’s name, doesn’t mean he didn’t leak the exact information needed to make that conclusion. While it might not result in charges based on the law, the damage has been done. The important thing to note is that the decision is not mine, it is the President’s, the difference is, we all have to live with his decision.


Michael Jones said...

Similar situation - with one critical difference.

Clinton fudged the truth big time, but it was over a private matter that should've remained so. Infidelity may be unseemly and unethical, but it is not illegal (if it was, half of America would be in jail right now...) Clinton nearly got tripped up in his own deception, but most of the more sordid questions posed to him really shouldn't have been asked in the first place.

Rove's actions compromised an intelligence officer. And depending on who you believe, he may have done so motivated by political retribution. Also unseemly and unethical, but also illegal by definition.

It's a bit more serious than a white stain on a blue dress.

Car Gal said...

I agree!